Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment of February 17, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 4 and 6 are canceled, and claims 1-3, 5 and 7-8 are pending for examination.
Priority
With the amendment to the claims as provided February 17, 2026, it is understood that the present claims are supported by the parent 17/485620 and priority extends back to September 27, 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to replace “an active material” with “a lithium compound”. However, the disclosure as filed does not indicate that any lithium compound can be used, and only describes use of the specific compounds of claim 5, for example. Therefore, the amendment is broader in scope than what is supported, and contains new matter. Dependent claims 2-3 and 7-8 are also rejected as not curing this new matter.
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the clarifying amendments of February 17, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gayden (US 2021/0288300) in view of Japan 2009-009907 (hereinafter ‘907), Seung et al (US 2013/0089782), Xie et al (US 2007/0110655) and Hwang et al (US 2014/0045099), EITHER alone OR further in view of KR 10-2008-0011924 (hereinafter ‘924)
Claim 1, 2, 5: Gayden teaches a method for fabricating a cathode film of a lithium ion battery by plasma spraying (note 0001, 0052-0053, 0023). A substate can be provided, such as a metal foil current collector (note 0041). Particles for the plasma spraying are formed (note 0041), where the particles can be made with lithium compound such as LiCoO2 (as desired by claim 5), and also a material such as graphite, and as well a non-lithium metal can also be used to form the particles/powder (composite powder) (note 0029, 0036, 0037, claims 1). The composite powder can include metal particles of size of various nanometer sizes, and the active material size can be up to 20 microns (note 0032). The plasma spraying onto the substrate includes exposing the powder to a plasma flame/stream in an atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) process, where the APS can use a gas flow of nitrogen or argon, where the powder would be heated and activated and form a porous film on the substrate and thus form a porous cathode film, layer on the substrate (note 0052, 0041, 0023).
(A) As to the substrate include a metal substate (such as aluminum desired by claim 2), with a vacuum coated layer of silver, onto which the powder applied, Gayden describes that the substrate can be a metal foil current collector, for example (note 0041).
‘907 describes a current collector and electrode that can be used for a lithium battery (note pages 2-3, translation), where the current collector can have a thin film substate of metal such as aluminum and a conductor layer formed on the surface thereof, where the conductor layer can be applied in a vacuum process (vacuum vapor deposition) and can be gold or platinum or broadly simply metal (note pages 2-3, translation). An electrode layer is applied to the current collector, where the electrode layer can include lithium cobaltate (LiCoO2).
Seung describes a current collector and electrode that can be used for a lithium battery (note 0039-0043), where the current collector can have a metal substrate, such as aluminum, and be coated with silver (so would have a layer of silver on the metal substrate) (note 0043). An electrode layer is applied to the current collector, where the electrode layer can include LiCoO2, etc. (note 0042, 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gayden to use as the substrate a current collector with an aluminum substrate and a vacuum coated layer of silver on the aluminum metal substrate such that the cathode material will be applied to the vacuum coated silver layer as suggested by ‘907 and Seung with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, because Gayden indicates using a current collector substrate, and ‘907 indicates that current collector substrates for similar lithium battery use with applied electrode includes such substrates with an aluminum substrate and vacuum coated layer of platinum or gold or metal in general onto which the electrode material is applied, and Seung teaches that current collectors for similar lithium battery materials can also be aluminum and coated with the metal of silver, thus suggesting that the general metal described by ‘907 that can be vapor deposited, would also be inclusive of silver.
(B) As to the forming of the composite powder including a processing of spheroidizing granulation as well,
Xie describes that when thermal spraying (which would include plasma spraying), it is desired to form spherical powders with high density, which improves flowability of the powder, and good flowability leads to consistency of coating quality (note 0008, 0009). It is described to take formed powder material, and in flight heat and melt the powder material in a plasma apparatus, then cool the molten droplets under free fall conditions and collect the resulting powder, where the provides smooth spheroidized powder have more consistent flow (note figures 1, 4, 0011-0012, 0014). It is described that the formed particles can be 5-100 microns in size (note 0022), and since the powders are to be usable for thermal spray application (note 0005), it is understood that this would be a good particle size, and further as to the particle size being the diameter of the particles, it would further be understood that this would be at least suggested to use this size as a diameter, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since the particles are to be spherical in shape and thus the size across, for example, in each area would be the same).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gayden in view of ‘907 and Seung to further take the formed particles from Gayden and treat them with the spheroidizing granulation process of Xie with an expectation of providing a desirably more flowable powder since Gayden in going on to plasma spray the powders (thermal spray) and Xie teaches the desire to provide spheroidizing granulation treatment to powders to be used for thermal spraying to get desirably better powder flow, and further this treatment would give generally spherical particles/granules since it is indicated that the process is to spheroidize and one wants a spherical shape for better flowability. As to the diameter of the particles, Xie would indicate a powder size/diameter for thermal spraying of 5-100 microns, indicating the expectation that the spheroidized particles would be usable in the process of Gayden.
(C) As to the plasma spraying conditions of a gas flow of argon and nitrogen uniformly mixed to obtain a plasma flame, with a spraying power of 10-50 kW, where the powder is heated to molten or semimolten,
Hwang describes atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) with a device for this purpose (note 0040, 0042), where the device/torch can use argon or a mix of argon and nitrogen to obtain a plasma flame (note 0042), where the power can be 35-45 kW, in the claimed range (note 0042), and where the powder for spraying is fed into the plasma flame and the powder is heated to a molten or semimolten state and sprayed onto the substrate (note 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gayden in view of ‘907, Seung and Xie to further use APS processing conditions as described by Hwang with an expectation of providing a predictably acceptable plasma spraying since Gayden in going on to use APS to spray the particles, and describes that argon or nitrogen gas can be used, where Hwang indicates a mixture of argon and nitrogen can be used for forming a plasma flame as well as argon alone, for example, and notes that the power used for such an APS process and torch can be 35-45 kW, giving a known suggested power to use, and indicates how in APS it is conventional to provide that the powder for spraying is fed into the plasma flame and the powder is heated to a molten or semimolten state and sprayed onto the substrate. Additionally, as to the argon and nitrogen gas being uniformly mixed, this would be suggested so that the results are uniform, with the same amount of argon and nitrogen present as the plasma continues to be formed (note how there is a flow rate for the gas, 0043 of Hwang).
Optionally, further using ‘924, as to the particle diameter used, ‘924 describes how spheroidizing can be understood to be provided for providing material for atmospheric plasma spraying (note page 3, translation, Example), where ‘924 describes how multiple materials can be combined (mixed) (note pages 2-3, translation), variously processed, and then spray dried to form a uniform spherical thermal spray powder having a diameter of 40-50 microns, that will then be coated on a substrate by atmospheric plasma spraying (note pages 2-3, translation, figure 1). ‘924 notes using the term “size” as to the particle diameter and also “particle diameter” (note page 2, translation as to “size of the spheroidized powder”, and page 3, translation, example, as to use of diameter for the same “40 to 50” microns). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gayden in view of ‘907, Seung, Xie and Hwang to further use a particle diameter of 40-50 microns for example, as described by ‘924 and in the range of Xie, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Gayden wants to plasma spray powders, and ‘924 indicates a good particle size diameter, in the claimed range, for plasma spraying.
Claim 3: ‘907 further suggests that the metal substrate thickness can be 5-50 microns (page 2, translation), overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gayden in view of ‘907, Seung, Xie and Hwang, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘924 as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Gayden (US 2016/0254533, hereinafter Gayden ‘533).
Claims 7, 8: As to the substrate heating temperature, and the thickness of the cathode film layer,
Gayden ‘533 further describes applying a cathode/positive electrode layer when making a lithium ion battery (note 0001, 0004, 0035), where the application is by atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) (0029-0030), where it is described that the electrode layer can be up to 200 microns thick (note 0024), and the substrate would be processed through APS at a heating temperature of less than 150 degrees C (note 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gayden in view of ‘907, Seung, Xie and Hwang, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘924 to further provide that the substrate is processed through the APS at a heating temperature of less than 150 degrees C, and the thickness of the cathode layer is 200 microns or less, as described by Gayden ‘533 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Gayden uses APS spraying to apply the cathode material, and Gayden ‘533 indicates that in a similar process, the substrate is processed through the APS at a heating temperature of less than 150 degrees C, and the thickness of the cathode layer is 200 microns or less, giving suggested features to use. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to optimize from the range given for substrate temperature and cathode layer thicknesses, giving values in the claimed ranges. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Dittrich (US 3617358) also notes making spheroid powders for thermal spraying (note the abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustments to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, including the new 35 USC 112(a) rejection and the new use of the reference to Seung.
As to the rejections using Chang as the primary reference, these are withdrawn due to the extension of priority back to September 27, 2021.
As to the rejections using Gayden as the primary, applicant argues that the combination does not provide for the silver coated current collector. The Examiner notes this argument, however, the reference to Seung has been provided as to the suggestion of this newly required feature. As to the argument that the Examiner has not provided articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, if applicant is referring to the silver coating requirement, as noted above the new reference to Seung has been provided as to the suggestion of this feature, with an detailed discussion of the reasoning for using such a feature. If applicant is arguing that other features have not been provided with such reasoning, the Examiner notes that no specific other missing features has been pointed out, and the Examiner provided a detailed discussion of the reasons for combining the references as discussed in the rejections above, and those positions are maintained here.
Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718